KGUN9 On Your Side, Tucson News, Weather & SportsDouglas Stonewalling Day 102: e-mails detail secret agenda

Douglas Stonewalling Day 102: e-mails detail secret agenda

Now that Douglas Schools Superintendent Earl Pettit has lived to fight another day, the three board members who've been waging a year-long campaign against him still aren't talking, and still refuse to tell voters why they've been trying to get rid of him.  But their e-mails to each other, exchanged in apparent violation of the state's open meeting law, speak volumes.

On Tuesday night the board gathered to hear what private investigator Patrick Cooper found out about Pettit.  As suspected, no specific incident appears to have provoked the investigation.  The board handed Cooper a big shovel and told him to dig as much dirt as possible.  His three month long probe didn't quite check Pettit out from A to Z.  But it did examine him from A to P -- Cooper looked into 16 specific areas of inquiry, ranging from the way Pettit handles child discipline to a question of whether he's ever lied to the board.  In essence, the board threw the entire book at Pettit.  Nothing stuck.  Cooper found that Pettit had committed not one serious violation of policy or procedure.  It wasn't all hearts and flowers for Pettit, though.  Cooper told the board that the majority of people who work with Pettit told him they consider the working environment to be hostile.  Still, in light of the report, the board voted 4 to 1 to keep Pettit on the job for now.  Board member Patricia Lopez was the lone holdout, insisting on immediate termination.  But the board also voted not to renew Pettit's contract when it expires midyear next year. 

But after all was said and done, it's still not clear to the public what was said or done.  Lopez and school board president Chuck Hoyack still refused to answer questions.  The board voted to keep Cooper's report and its supporting documents secret.  But while Hoyack, Lopez and board member Ed Rivera don't want to explain themselves to you, they've been very busy explaining themselves to each other in secret.  This week Hoyack finally turned over a huge stack of documents in response to a series of public record requests from 9 On Your Side.  Those e-mails paint a picture of a secret agenda to oppose, and ultimately fire, Pettit. And it's been going on for more than a year, in what appears to be flagrant and repeated violations of state open meetings law.  Here is a sketch of what those e-mails show about what is motivating Lopez, Rivera and Hoyack.

Patricia Lopez
8/27/08:  Lopez writes Hoyack to complain bitterly about the way Pettit dealt with a mother and her son.  She writes, "Mr. Pettit was rude, judgemental, and made wrongful allegations to her son."  Lopez says Pettit accused the child of being on meth but says that a medical report proved the claim false.  "All Mr. Pettit did was to talk to the mother about his years in the service and that he knew all about drugs."  In the e-mail, Lopez proposes to go over Pettit's head, writing that the parent "would like to meet with you and with me when you are available.  She does not want Mr. Pettit...."

9/22/08  Lopez writes Hoyack to complain about the way Pettit handled a school lockdown that made the local paper.  "I wrote to Mr. Pettit about my concern as a parent and how I felt about him putting negative publicity in the paper about our schools.... I know he does not care about what I have to say.... Mr. Hoyack, we need to do something about Mr. Pettit.  I will back you on it 100%."

1/23/09  The new school board is now in place, with three new members plus Hoyack and Lopez.  Lopez writes Hoyack to complain about the way an administrator is conducting a staff investigation.  "According to him, Mr. Pettit gave him permission to do this."  She says when Pettit when brought the matter up in a conversation that took place in her presence, "I did not say anything, he thinks none of us know."

4/16/09  Lopez writes Hoyack:  "Mr. Pettit is on a roll.  He told his administrators that he is going to do what he wants because the board does not give him directives and any changes he makes does not have to board approved and that we hate him anyway."  She lets Hoyack know that she's been talking with Rivera about it.  "Mr. Rivera thinks we should give Mr. Pettit a directive since that is what he wants, but how? .... Mr. Hoyack, I wish Mr. Pettit... would leave."

9/19/09  Lopez writes Hoyack and gives him a laundry list of complaints against Pettit.  "Mr. Pettit does not follow directives from the board.   Lack of respect for board members, the community and staff.  Smirks and rolls his eyes at the board meetings or when a parent is trying to talk to him about their child.  Invasion of privacy-going through e-mails, phone calls, etc.... Low staff morale.... Lying to the board and the community.  ELD investigation.... Intimidating staff."  Two days later, Lopez and Hoyack vote to fire Pettit.

Ed Rivera
2/26/09  Ed Rivera, a new member of the board, complains to Hoyack that the staff of Clawson Elementary School is meeting to discuss problems at Stevenson Elementary.  He writes, "Is the situation getting out of control or am I overreacting or are people making this up.  I had one man come to my home on Tuesday and told me that I need to get rid of Earl Pettit and that since I am an investigator with the Sheriff's Department I should conduct an investigation."  The next line suggests that secret conversations with other board members to get rid of Pettit are already well underway:  "I wonder if community is going to back us or our Superintendent on our next action if we are to take any." As of this point, a meeting to take that "next action" had not yet been scheduled, but it would be posted within two weeks.

3/4/09  Rivera writes Hoyack about a complaint the board has received about Pettit.  "What action if any do we take or should be discussed by special board meeting on Tuesday or is Pettit going to address complaint?"  Rivera also notes that another "male board member" -- that would have to be Mario Ramos -- called to complain that Rivera had written an improper memo.  Rivera's memo, already reported by KGUN9, demands that Pettit apologize to Hoyack's wife, Stevenson volunteer Alvina Hoyack, and also that he reinstate her as a Stevenson volunteer.  Rivera had distributed that memo to every board member.  He tells Hoyack that the other board member reminded him "that I must simply understand that I have no individual right to order Pettit to do anything.  I agree and informed him that I was trying to get my point across not only to Pettit but to all board members."  But Rivera doesn't seem to understand that by doing so, he violated state law, or that in discussing the memo with Ramos and Hoyack, he was violating it again.  When Rivera contacted Hoyack to help plan an upcoming board meeting that had not even been posted yet, he was probably violating it yet again.  And in case there's any doubt that Hoyack and Rivera were working together on that, Rivera dispels it:  "I am preparing items that I believe need to be addressed at a special meeting on Tuesday.  I believe you asked for that information...." 

3/5/09  The next day, as promised, Rivera delivered a document to Hoyack with the message, "What I want answered by Pettit...."  The attachment contains a laundry list of questions.  One entire paragraph demands answers on Pettit's reassignment of Alvina Hoyack.  The second inquires about his suspension of Stevenson principal Rafael Ortiz.  Two paragraphs question Pettit's handling of the English Language Learner uproar at Stevenson.  "If Stevenson was not in compliance with the ELD program why wasn't this issue addressed earlier by Mr. Pettit, Ms. Marston, or Ms. Toland?  Was this a conspiracy... to cause harm to the Douglas School district and to use Stevenson elementary as an example to other schools in the district and rid the district of Mr. Ortiz?"  Four days later, Hoyack called the meeting.  The next day, Rivera, Hoyack and Lopez voted to relieve Pettit of his duties.

At about the same time Lopez sent her laundry list of Pettit complaints to Hoyack in September, Rivera did the same.   A cover e-mail suggests he sent the attachment on 9/22, the day after Hoyack tried and failed to again relieve Pettit of his duties and the board voted to investigate Pettit.  He writes, "I do not feel that Earl Pettit should continue as Superintendent for Douglas Unified School District.... I do not have a working relationship with Superintendent Earl Pettit.... I do not trust and feel that I can have a working relationship with Mr. Pettit... I have no confidence in Mr. Pettit.  Superintendent Earl Pettit's must be terminated effective immediately."

Chuck Hoyack
If Hoyack responded to any of these e-mails, his records don't show it.  He has steadfastly refused to comment or be interviewed on the Pettit matter.  But he did interview himself.  On 4/9/09, on the eve of a board vote to reinstate Pettit, Hoyack e-mailed himself some notes entitled, "Why Earl Pettit should NOT be reinstated as Superintendent of DUSD...."  For one, he says the state investigation of English Language problems at Stevenson is not complete.  He acknowledges that an investigator had determined that Pettit had violated no policies -- then goes on to say he doesn't buy it, writing, "I would argue that he has violated the spirit of the law in failing to take appropriate action when he came to know the situation at  Stevenson Elementary.  Mr. Pettit has failed in his handling of the whole situation...."  Hoyack writes, "It is clear that Mr. Pettit has violated or failed to follow at least four DUSD Policies in regard to his handling of the  ELD situation."  And he concludes:  "His handling of the ELD situation at Stevenson is symptomatic of the less than acceptable internal condition of the District under the supervision of Earl Pettit.  Our children, employees, and the community deserve better leadership."  Later that day Hoyack and Lopez voted against reinstating Pettit.  Kramer and Ramos voted in favor.  Rivera's swing vote put Pettit back on the job.

Regardless of whether Pettit deserves to keep his job or not, the secret communications have put the board's ability to act on Pettit in question.  If Hoyack, Rivera and Lopez are found to be in violation of the state's open meeting law as these documents indicate, they could be removed from office -- and any votes against Pettit, including the one Tuesday night, could be thrown out.  Pettit's attorney served notice before the board meeting that he may indeed sue.

What, exactly, constitutes a violation of the open meeting law?  The statute defines a "meeting" this way:  "... the gathering, in person or through technological devices, of a quorum of members of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including any deliberations by a quorum with respect to such action."  In the case of the Douglas school board, three members constitutes a voting majority.  But the courts have ruled that public officers can be in violation of the statute even if they don't physically meet, and even if they don't exchange thoughts simultaneously.  The office of the Arizona Ombudsman puts it this way:  "Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members.  Splintering the quorum can be done by meeting in person, by telephone, electronically, or through other means to discuss a topic that is or may be presented to the public body for a decision." The language is complicated, but in practice it means that if Joe, Fred and Jane constitute a voting majority, then they can't talk shop outside of a public meeting even if the communication only takes the form of Joe saying something to Jane, then Jane repeating it to Fred.  The District is very aware of this law, and board members ought to be.  When board members get e-mails from District staff, they conclude with this warning:  "To ensure compliance with the Open Meeting Law... Members of the public body may reply to this message, but they should not send a copy of the reply to other members."  In other words, even one member talking to one other member about upcoming business could be a violation of the law.  Three members passing messages back and forth about upcoming business almost certainly is.

Meanwhile, the board's commitment to secrecy continues.  Tuesday night it voted to keep the Cooper report confidential.  In her last communication to KGUN9, Anne Carl, who says she is attorney for the District, stuck to her guns in claiming that attorney-client privilege protects those documents. She told KGUN9 that if we feel otherwise, to cite the legal reasons why we think that.  On Wednesday KGUN9's legal team did just that, sending a nine page letter to her and the District.  The letter cites specific legal arguments for release of those documents and also the release of public records Lopez and Ramos may possess.  It points out, "The requested correspondence also may show that Board members violated the Arizona Open Meetings Law, as alleged by Superintendent Pettit's attorney.  [See Dec. 22, 2009 letter from Gary L. Lassen to District Governing Board]  Given that violations of the Open Meetings Law could result in Board members being removed from office, Board actions being declared "null and void," the imposition of civil penalties and an investigation by the Arizona Attorney General's Office, the public has a strong interest in examining any such correspondence.  E.g., A.R.S. §§ 38-431.05, 38-431.06, 38-431.07."

Ultimately, it's up to the voters of Douglas to decide whether the board's judgment of Pettit was correct.  9 On Your Side's commitment is to ensure those voters have the facts they need to make up their own minds.  We believe the board's obsessive secrecy violates both the spirit of American democratic principles and the letter of Arizona law -- and that there is no legitimate reason to spend even one more penny of the public's money in an effort to keep the public's business from the public.  Our efforts to get those facts for you will continue.

Note:  supporting documents for this story can be found in the "Also on KGUN9.com" box in the upper left corner of this page.   For more stories in this series, click on the "9 On Your Side" tab on the headline box near the top of our home page.

Thursday morning update:  early this morning the District delivered two pages of documents submitted by board member Patricia Lopez.  Two.   By contrast, Chuck Hoyack sent more than a hundred pages to KGUN9.  Both of the Lopez documents are duplicates of other documents already in KGUN9's possession.  Whether this means Lopez is holding on to other documents, has deleted or destroyed records in violation of the law, or plans to send more documents later is unknown at this point.  Stay tuned.

Forrest Carr
fcarr@kgun9.com

Joel Waldman
jowaldman@kgun9.com